I've always worked very hard to avoid absolute white and absolute black in my photos. But I think maybe I'm working too hard. When is it appropriate to have blown highlights / shadows? Are there examples of photographers who make use of these extremes to good effect?

This question came from our discussion, support, and feature requests site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers.

I'm really hoping this is not too subjective. I'm hoping for practical exposure parameters and technique to produce good results -- allowing for blown highlights and shadows. Make sense?
–
jaxxonJun 23 '11 at 17:47

3

@jaxxon: It's pretty subjective, but you might give it a go on the main site and see what you get... The question definitely doesn't belong on Meta though. Main Site = Questions About Photography. Meta = Questions About Photo-SE.
–
Jay Lance PhotographyJun 23 '11 at 18:56

1

Maybe it's better phrased as "what are the problems with blown highlights and shadows?", rather than the more subjective "is it okay?" (which the answers you've gotten so far are focused on).
–
mattdmJun 23 '11 at 21:06

6

some music just sounds better played too loud, the same applies to photographs!
–
Matt GrumJun 23 '11 at 23:35

Thanks for the comments, guys.. and for moving it from meta. (DUH!) Some really helpful answers here.
–
jaxxonJun 23 '11 at 23:41

9 Answers
9

I would say that blown highlights or blocked blacks are perfectly acceptable if it helps you meet your artistic goals! There are different and often conflicting aspects of photography that sometimes make it difficult to judge this kind of thing. On the one hand, you have the "technicals", the aspects of mechanics and technology, telling you not to blow out your highlights. Its "bad" because they can't be recovered with digital, and there is a bit of a taboo about it. On the other hand, you have the "art", the aspects of vision and style that make a photograph all you. At times, the artistic desires of your minds eye are at conflict with the demands of technology.

When push comes to shove, I would say go with your artistic side. If you visualize something that moves you, capture it how you see it. If that means blocked blacks or blown highlights, including a bit of sun flare, allowing some vignetting, then so be it. Ultimately, art is what photography is all about...not meeting some logical definition of what photography should be from a technical standpoint. Use the tools at your disposal to expose your vision, and push the limits of those tools to bring about your own personal style.

And there are some things that are just naturally going to be blown or blocked, period. Think specular reflections on chrome and the shadow side of draped black velvet. Now picture a model wearing a black velvet dress sitting on a motorcycle. Playing the histogram game is just going to result in a stroke.
–
user2719Jun 23 '11 at 22:18

1

Aye, @Stan makes another good point. Sometimes there are little things here and there in a scene that just ARE "pure" black or white, not necessarily by choice but by nature. Worrying about technicals is really just a recipe for frustration...worry about your vision first, craft the shot according to your personal style second, and worry about technicals last.
–
jrista♦Jun 23 '11 at 22:21

Jrista summed it up nicely, but I’ve added some examples of my own to show why you don't necessarily need to worry about highlights unless it is a technical or aesthetic requirement.

Digital sensors and even film cannot capture the dynamic range that the human eye can see, along with the processing the brain performs. Sometimes there is too much contrast in an image and you will have to choose whether to expose for the highlights, shadows or mid-tones based on what you want to achieve.

For example, I am the subject of this photo. The interior is noticeably darker than the sky and the environment outside, so I chose to expose for myself and the room I was in to bring viewer attention to me and the camera. This resulted in the exterior being overexposed. I might have been able to underexpose the image a little and boost the shadows when processing the raw file but I decided to just expose properly on myself and let everything fall where it may.

A similar situation here. The "subject" is the statement, "Jack Lives Here" on the mug, so I decided to expose at +0 EV on the mug and the rest of the scene fell where it did.

I think this goes back to (just like learning Jazz) you have to learn the rules before you break them. I was trained to not crush the blacks and no paper based whites... but sometimes a pictures just screams for some crushed blacks in the shadows. As long you can justify it from an artistic standpoint and you KNOW that they are crushed and not just randomly moving sliders around... i say go for... I know I sure do.

I would say it is always OK if you have no other option but to blow out highlights or underexpose shadows to get the shot. It is better to get the shot then to throw it out because lack of technical prowess.

A possible solution is to shoot RAW format, or shoot multiple exposure to get around the limitations of your equipment.

+1 for mentioning the "blinkies". The highlight warnings are in some ways more useful than a histogram, since they don't just tell you that there are clipped values, but where there are clipped values.
–
user2719Jun 24 '11 at 20:56

I would just point out another consideration, that I haven't seen mentioned in the answers. When looking for blown out highlights and shadows, beware also of the posterization (i.e. blotches of color coming from compression or lack of available hues) that may come around under-overexposed areas, especially following JPEG compression, and when you try to recover highlights or shadows.

These may catch the eye more than the highlights themselves, and rarely look "right".